INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES Vs. HARISHANKAR SINGHANIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is direct, ed against an order of the learned Sub-diyi. sional Judicial Magistrate, Rayagada acquitting the respondents of the offences under Sections 21 (1) (iv) (c) and 22 (1) (b) of the Factories Act.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution may briefly be stated thus : On 21-8-73 Y. Nag, a casual mazdoor along with G N Rao, operator were engaged to clean the cotton linters and other materials thrown out from the belt in motion at the D. Duster No. 2 in the rag plant. In the said plant, cotton and sunhemps are fed in a chute from one end and those materials pass through the rag cutter where they are cut into smaller pieces. They are then further carried by an inclined conveyor belt to D. Duster Section over a roller drum which is placed at a height of 9 feet from the ground. The roller drum has inside dia of about 20 inches with 4 arms which rotate clock-wise. No platform is provided at the place and the end of the roller drum is left unguarded. The roller drum is driven by an electric motor. There h a space of 6 inches between the end plate of the motor side of the drum. Some thrown out rags used to be collected in the said space and unless the space is periodically cleaned the motor is likely to be jammed. Y. Nag was cleaning the cotton linters from the said space of 6 inches after climbing a supporting structure and by placing his legs on two verticle stands and holding a bracing with his right hand while the motor and the roller drum with the belt were in motion. While so engaged, he got his left hand entangled in roller drum as a result of which his hand was twisted and severed. Y. Nag lost control of himself fell down on the ground and sustained injuries on his forehead. The Inspector of Factories, Rayagada got the accident report from the respondent-Manager on 25-8-1973 The inspector visited the factory thereafter On enquiry a report was sent by him saying that the respondents who were the occupier and Manager had violated the provisions of Sections 2l (1) (iv (c) and 22 (1) (b) of the Factories Act. Accordingly, a prosecution report was launched against the respondents.

(3.) THE defence taken by the respondents is that the roller drum is adequately guard-ed by its position which is at a height in accessible to a man standing on the ground as wel as by its construction so as to make it safe to every person employed in the factory. The plant was designed and directed by Messrs. J. M. Voith of West Germany, a reputed firm for the process of rag cutting. Any further additional guard would have affected the process and would not provide safeguard against negligence. The accident in question took place due to negligence of Y. Nag and without the knowledge, consent and connivance of the respondents,